fred2 said:
You mean hardcoded to violence?
Well, "hardcoded" has more than one usage here.
In one way, yes, it is hardcoded - as valcik pointed out, when all else fails, violence is a potential solution as any, but that doesn't mean people will immediately jump to the option of snapping each others' necks and so on. But it
is an option, one we have rooted deep in ourselves.
If I'm not wrong, hate and aggression are nurtured deep inside our brain (literally), in a "primordial" part. Our advanced parts of the brain, cortex etc. were slowly built upon it during the course of several millions of years, but it is still there, and it does know how to act up.
However, since we've gone "sophisticated" enough to put that part of brain on standby most of the time and vent our aggression in a more rational manner, that doesn't mean our primary, natural urges (like I've said, dominance and power etc.) are gone. They are hidden under a layer of intellect, rational and abstract thinking, but they're still there, and they influence everything else about ourselves.
Think about it.
Coworkers competing at work for a promotion. Students for a better grade and teacher's approval. Young men competing for a girl and vice versa. Political strength and domination. Economic monopoly. War.
All are based on a same principle, one simply principle from which all our ambition as human beings thrive. I probably sound a bit like Nietzsche right now, but I personally believe it is like that, and yet need to see the evidence to prove me otherwise.
Back to the topic of war, in a "normal" circumstance, war is not the need for violence, but a need to achieve dominance and prosper through effective use of violence.
In its own core, it has never changed. The methods of warfare, the "art of war" if you will has evolved over time, but its still the same basic concept.
Ideologies behind each side of the conflict are important too, but when the push comes to shove, even they're basically the same - whose ideology and way of thinking will prove correct.
In
Fallout world, the two sides were competing in a game of who has more resources, more wealth, and therefore more power. No difference to any conflict in history before, and, as we've seen, after.
The usage of nuclear weapons was a desperate move, most likely, but still falls in the same principle. I believe China probably started it after USA successfully retook Alaska under its wings (if my lore knowledge is correct - it certainly is rusted) - they could've been hoping US wouldn't have high capabilities for a second strike (I personally don't think this is the case, but eh, we still haven't seen how China looks in game), or they could alternatively been thinking "If we can't have it, so can't they."
But this is pure speculation. The possibilities are many, but don't change the essential concept here - methods of war may, but war itself never changes.
